>>13677371>The virus is not going to become less deadly if it keeps mutatingYou're a fucking retard. Mutations are literally what cause pathogens to become less deadly over time. The general trend your see when a new pathogen or other parasitic organism emerges or finds a new host, is that over time, the pathogen becomes more infectious and less lethal (i.e. less "virulent"). This is a direct consequence of normal evolutionary processes, and generally involves mutation, variability, and selection, like most other evolutionary processes. This is well established mathematical biology and game theory. Look up "virulence trade-off" or the "trade-off hypothesis".
Does trade-off always result in less virulence? Not necessarily, but it's always the general trend, and when it does occur, it is literally a consequence of mutation and selection. In other words, the idea that mutations will somehow prevent reduction of virulence is a complete non-sequiter.
Also, do you even into the red queen hypothesis? Mutations are constantly occurring. Without them, it would actually cause a decline in fitness. This is basic evolutionary biology by the way. So if organisms are always undergoing new mutations and subject selection pressure, then we would literally never build any immunity to any diseases whatsoever, because the just keep mutating - but this is clearly not the case. In other words, you're a fuck retard, and you should learn basic evolutionary biology before you go shit talking people on the internet about a subject that you've never studied.
